Global Warming

Flood Wall Street Climate Change Protest Is a Washout

Imposing equality is the goal; climate change is the excuse

|

Flood Banner
Reason

New York, September 22—"Stop Capitalism. End the Climate Crisis." That's the motto for the Flood Wall Street demonstration that aimed to "take to the streets of New York's Financial District" and "carry out a massive sit-in to disrupt business as usual" in order to "highlight the role of Wall Street in fueling the climate crisis." The would-be Flooders rallied at the World War II Memorial in Battery Park at the tip of Manhattan. In contrast to the huge turnout for the People's Climate March on Sunday, Flood Wall Street attracted a hardcore group of about 1,000 protestors, many of whom were clearly nostalgic Occupy Wall Street veterans. Participants were asked to wear blue so that their sit-in would signify how rising ocean tides fueled by man-made global warming will eventually inundate the inner sanctum of global capitalism.

Flood poster
Reason

Since I had somehow missed Occupy Wall Street events, this was my first time enjoying the human "microphone" in which participants nearer the speakers repeat by shouting what they are saying so that others further back can benefit from their insights. I will say that the rhythmic call-and-response aspect of the "microphone" did make it easy to take notes. The first speaker at the Battery Park pre-Flood rally was Canadian activist Naomi Klein, author of the new book This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.

Klein began by reminiscing that the Occupy Wall Street movement had originated three years ago, almost to the same day as the Flood Wall Street protest. Occupy Wall Street "put corporate capitalism on trial," said Klein. "The entire world listened and the debate on inequality opened up." Klein continued, "We are oppressed by the knowledge that the system of short term profits and deregulated greed that deepens inequality and forecloses on our homes is the very same system that is foreclosing on our collective home." Klein ended, "We demand to Change Everything." Nice how she worked the title of her just released book into her exhortation. Listening to Klein it was pretty hard not to conclude that the real goal is imposing equality, and climate change is the excuse.

Need Revolution
Reason

Next up followed a slate of speakers from around the globe representing "frontline communities" that are supposedly bearing the brunt of climate change caused by corporate greed. "A typical example of criminal acts caused by corporations is climate change that is already causing damages," declared socio-economist Mamadou Goita from the West African country of Mali. Specifically corporate climate change "is causing major losses in food production." Perhaps so. But World Bank data on cereal yields per hectare suggest a somewhat different story. While Malian grain yields do bounce around a bit, there is pretty clearly a long-term rising trend. In 2000, yields were 1,006 kilograms per hectare; by 2013 they had risen to 1,667 kilograms per hectare. "Corporations took power; devastated our nature; are destroying lives; and are dismantling all people's power," asserted Goita. He concluded, "Now it is the time to take back our power."

Brazilian anti-dam activist Elisa Estronioli is quite right that the rights of poor and indigenous people are all too often disregarded when it comes to constructing big hydroelectric dams in developing countries. She cogently asked at the Flood Wall Street rally how can electricity from such projects "be clean energy when it is produced inside a model that violates human rights?" Estronioli is an organizer against the giant Belo Monte dam largely being built and paid for by the Brazilian government in the Amazon region. "We are the victims of the same global model in which energy plays a central role," concluded Estronioli. "There is no clean energy in the capitalist system." Say what?

FreeMarketsGenocidal
Reason

One other frontline community speaker was Miriam Miranda from Honduras. "The planet is collapsing and the time has come to act," said Miranda. Why is action necessary? Because we must fight "against the culture of death that we are being condemned to by the grand corporations of death and transnational capital," Miranda finished.

Once the featured speakers were done, it was time to configure the Flood. The protestors were instructed to arrange themselves into three cohorts depending on their willingness to be arrested: The most eager to be arrested in the front and the more hesitant at the back. However, one of the organizers whose name I didn't catch did knowingly assure participants, "We believe that if you've never been arrested before, this is the perfect action to join."

Carbon Bubble
Reason

So off streamed the Flood festooned with a variety of anti-capitalist placards, buttons, posters, and so forth. One of the main attractions were a couple of giant mylar balloons symbolizing the fossil fuel industries' "carbon bubble" that activists argue is about to burst. The bubble supposedly exists because fossil fuel companies are overvalued because their worth is calculated using carbon energy reserves that they won't be able to sell in the future as the world turns toward renewables.

Flexicuffs
Reason

The Flood was firmly channeled by barricades up Broadway backed by police ornamented with garlands of white plastic flexi-cuffs. Expecting the Flood to eventually flow onto Wall Street itself, I took a back route and waited for the Flood to arrive in front of the New York Stock Exchange. While waiting, a single middle-aged demonstrator unmolested by the police waved around a poster reading "Global Warming Burns Me Up." A younger protestor climbed the steps of Federal Hall and yelled something like, "What are you going to do Wall Street when the oceans drown your kids?" He was quickly shooed off by two portly Park Service guards.

Some 30 to 40 minutes passed, so I went in search of the missing Flood and found that the police had halted the tide on Broadway. The protestors had ended up "flooding" just a couple of blocks of lower Broadway around Arturo Di Modica's Charging Bull sculpture. Some were sitting-in, others milling randomly, and an occasional chant rose from the stymied flow: "1-2-3-4, climate change is class war." Sometime around 2 p.m., a single demonstrator tried to run past the police line and was immediately caught and handcuffed in the view of several score cameras. After all that excitement, I left.

GlobalWarmingBurns
Reason

Later, when the police ordered the Flood to disperse, about a hundred refused and were arrested and booked. Wall Street was not Flooded.

The U.N. Climate Summit convenes 120 or so world leaders Tuesday to "catalyze ambitious action on the ground to reduce emissions and strengthen climate resilience and mobilize political will for an ambitious global agreement by 2015."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

235 responses to “Flood Wall Street Climate Change Protest Is a Washout

  1. We must stop these evil corporations from providing goods, services and jobs for society!

    1. Is that what those bastards are doing?

      Sign me up for a good spot on the barricades!

      1. OK, but I’ll have to build a pencil first.

        1. I think there’s a TED talk about an Englishman who tried making a toaster from scratch.

          Very entertaining – by cheating like a weasel (and not really trying to hide that) he got something that he could plug in, that ran for about three seconds.

          A few months well spent, I guess – if only for making the point about modern productivity.

        2. Just watch your footprint.

        3. Build a pencil. Hilarious.

          1. Well, they are not going to build themselves. 🙂

    2. Goods, services or jobs are not going to address the issue of global warming. If it were the case, we’d see corporate owners up there marching with the rest of them.

      1. Ummm… the corporate owners are marching; where do you think their retirement funds are stashed?

        Of course, they don’t actually realize that…

        1. Few if any find it necessary to retire from the onerous burdens of ownership.

        2. You really think any of those marchers have saved for retirement? That’s what government is for.

    3. Just give the employees guns and they’ll be “governments” instead of “corporations”.

  2. Profit is evil. Motivation is evil. Inequality is evil.

    1. Incentive is evil. Innovation is evil. Competition is evil. Achievement is evil.

      1. Differing ability is evil. Differential compensation is evil.

            1. But is evil , evil? Or good in disguise?

              1. Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

    2. “Profit is evil. Motivation is evil. Inequality is evil.”

      Profit, motivation or inequality are not going to address the issue of global warming. If it were the case, we’d see corporate owners up there marching with the rest of them.

      1. Profit, motivation or inequality are not going to address the issue of global warming

        Good! The longer we are not going to address the issue of global warming, the better for society.

        1. Any issue, ignored for a sufficient length of time, will disappear. This has to be mother nature at her kindest. It’s good to know she has the best intentions for society.

        2. And, probably, better for the environment.

  3. How many trees gave their lives so those moronic signs could be made? I don’t like to think about it.

    1. Professional protesters being a renewable resource, surely many more shall die before they’re finished.

  4. “1-2-3-4, climate change is class war.”

    Hey hey, ho ho, rhyming chants have got to go!

    1. How about:

      “Hey hey, ho ho, rhyming chants have got to end!”

      1. “Why don’t you make like a tree, and go away?”

        My favorite Charles Barkley quote (made after the being vanquished in a playoff game – which one I don’t remember)

        1. My favorite sports quote, after the Knicks lost another game:

          The ship be sinking and the sky’s the limit.”
          -Michael Ray Richardson

      1. Hard to believe they are all gone.

        1. Not really, did you see them?

  5. I love how the reporting of an event that is made up of civil disobedience is covered cynically, but only if it happens to be an issue one disagrees with. Of course, it always depends which side you are on to color your cynicism, or lack thereof.

    Kind of like the civil disobedience at Ted Bundy’s ranch. Here at Reason, that was covered as a righteous calling, with no ulterior or diverse motives. But the climate march and aftermath? That CAN’T be righteous, can it?

    1. Their ignorance and stupidity is fucking righteous, dude!

      1. One vote for righteousness!

        1. Jackand Ace|9.23.14 @ 9:49AM|#
          “One vote for righteousness!”

          And you’ll provide the stupidity, right?

        2. Their smug morality is Righteous, too!

    2. Of course, it always depends which side you are on to color your cynicism, or lack thereof.

      An opinion magazine has an opinion? Well fuck my shit.

      You posted the reverse of this on ThinkProgress, Kos, and HuffPo, right?

      1. They do exactly the same as Reason.

      2. Those sites preach tolerance, so such a post would likely be flagged and deleted.

        1. I can’t believe Reason didn’t give me a trigger warning about this post.

          1. I can’t believe they strayed from their core topics.

    3. It was fucking righteous. I support the rights of these people to be as stupid as they please. However I am equally free to call them stupid.

    4. I was wondering why the police stopped them before they get to the stock exchange. Were they being destructive? Violent? If not, let them march and then go on their way.

      But Bailey is quite right that this was not about climate change, it was about prosperity, and the protesters’ desire to diminish, if not destroy it. Nothing cynical in pointing that out.

      1. As someone who believes that climate change is one of our biggest, if not biggest, problems, my fear is in fact the whole issue being subverted into other things. So I agree with you, Lynch.

        Just wanted to point out a bit of hypocrisy here at Reason. But you are right.

        1. And don’t forget your hypocrisy for not posting similary at Salon and Huffpo.

          Never forget!

          1. Funny…I have never posted a comment at either. Should I?

            1. Or you could sign up for reading comprehension class at the local elementary school.

        2. You mean your open-ended, ill-defined, poorly understood, badly modeled, dangerously unpredictive hobby horse of social activism might bear fruits you never intended? Say it isn’t so, friend.

          1. So say you, anyway.

            1. SO SAY WE ALL!

              1. Just started watching Galactica! Great show…it gave fracking a whole new meaning!!

                1. Prepare yourself for a Cleveland Browns level of let down when you get to the finale.

                  1. The ending’s not that bad. Actually, when you factor in how SciFi (now SyFy so they can trademark) cut the legs out from under them they wrapped it up fairly well.

                    Incredible show.

        3. I’m more concerned about climate change than your typical Reason commenter, though not as concerned as you it seems. But I have no sympathy for people who people who want to use the possibility of climate change to push some enviro-communist agenda. Not only does it show profound ignorance but, all ideology aside, it is a terrible solution to climate change on a practical level. Anyone truly concerned about climate change, and not about simply pushing some other agenda, would do well to kick these people to the curb.

          1. Lynch, that is my fear…that we will lose people like you, and we can’t afford to.

            1. I’m not so sure you have me now. Depends on what you want to do. I’m for fracking. I’m for opening up more oil fields. I’m for ending subsidies to green energy. I’m also for simplifying the tax code and clamping down on cronyism so that fossil fuels have to compete on a level playing field. I’m for streamlining environmental review and regulations to make it easier to build green energy plants like wind farms despite NIMBYism. And I am strongly, strongly for reducing the regulatory burden on nuclear (but simultaneously ending government subsidies thereof) because it is a crying shame that we don’t get most of our energy from that.

              1. ^^^THIS (squared)^^^

              2. Step 1…recognize there is a problem.

                We’re not even at that point with most commenters on the blog (thankfully Ronald is there).

                I am more than willing to let the solutions to the problem get debated and then sorted out. But its a problem that has to be solved. And that is what I meant by not losing you.

                1. If the climate change community could state their case without hyperbole, skewed data, and jack-booted demands for conformity, I would be inclined to listen.

                  As it stands, Climategate, Al Gore, and all of the ulterior motives of the protesters, I am nonplussed by the hype.

                  1. Here is one suggestion for you…stop listening to Al Gore, and instead check out what National Academy of Science says about the topic. Or American Geophysical Union. Or American Association for Advancement of Science.

                    You’re not listening to the right sources.

                    1. And who should I listen to in these groups? Richard Lindzen, who is a member of all of these? Roy Spencer?

                    2. Do so if you like, just realize that the clear majority of the members of those groups think differently. If you want to listen to the lone wolf, be my guest.

                    3. Science is not determined by consensus, and to imply that political biases on this topic would only exist outside of these organizations and not inside them shows a level of rose-colored thinking that is laughable

                      Now you might say rightly that the near-monolith of their messaging proves that the preponderance of the evidence is monolithic as well. However, as incidents like Climategate show, divergent conclusions don’t seem to be welcome in this conversation, regardless what the evidence shows.

          2. Read “All the Trouble in the World” by P.J. O’Rourke. It was published in the mid 90’s.

            He directly and correctly lays out how the Communists did not just slump off quietly and lick their wounds after Capitalism so soundly kicked their ass, but picked up the mantle of Environmentalism and started the plans for their great rebirth.

            Global warming has ALWAYS been subverted by the Communist agenda. That doesn’t make Climate Change false science, but it does make the pinko commies marching for change assholes who have a devious hidden agenda.

            And why the hell would the Environmentalists side with the commies anyway? Commies are directly responsible for some of the worst ecological disasters the world has ever seen. Oh, and if communism is the answer the why the Fuck are the Chinese the worst polluters in the entire world? By the greenies logic they should be the most pristine clean country in the world for all the tools the greenies long for are available to the Chinese government already.

            Perhaps the environmentalists are lying and all they really want is political power? Say it isn’t so!

            1. Environmentalists? Gee, and here I thought its was scientists.

              1. That would be assuming intellectual yesmen say what they do because of science and nothing at all to do with their politically funded budgets.

              2. The “Flood Wall Street Climate Protest” was all scientists huh ?

                1. They aren’t all environmentalists either.

                  But don’t be obtuse…I was referring to who is warning you about the climate…it is the science community. Wouldn’t want to scare you off with the word “environment,” since its the boogeyman to you.

          3. “But I have no sympathy for people who people who want to use the possibility of climate change to push some enviro-communist agenda.”

            Ron was at these events, interviewed the participants, and found no one who expressed such views. I think you can set your mind at rest.

            1. “Ron was at these events, interviewed the participants, and found no one who expressed such views. I think you can set your mind at rest.”

              Did you fail to read what was above or are you simply stupid enough not to understand?
              “The first speaker at the Battery Park pre-Flood rally was Canadian activist Naomi Klein, author of the new book This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.”

              1. “Listening to Klein it was pretty hard not to conclude that the real goal is imposing equality, and climate change is the excuse.”

                It’s called putting words in her mouth. Neither she nor anyone else mentioned in the article expressed the views Ron is on about. If the interviewees won’t say what the journalist want them to say, say it for them. Standard propaganda technique.

                1. mtrueman|9.23.14 @ 12:39PM|#
                  “It’s called putting words in her mouth. Neither she nor anyone else mentioned in the article expressed the views Ron is on about”

                  No, you ignoramus, it’s called reading the title of her book:
                  “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.”

                  1. But poor Ron had to listen to Klein before he found it hard not to reach the conclusions he did. You can do it without listening to anyone. You’d clearly make the superior science reporter.

            2. Jesus Christ. This whole little march was to piggyback off of the climate march, but narrowed down to a specifically anti-capitalist message. The whole point of this march was to “use climate change to push some enviro-communist agenda.”

              1. “This whole little march was to piggyback off of the climate march”

                If you say so. I wasn’t there myself and am relying on the reportage of Ron. If you have other sources, you are invited to share them, or not.

                1. You are stupid. Naomi was pushing her new book:

                  “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.”

                  What the Fuck do you think it is about ?

                  Where do people like you exist in this world, who feeds and cloths you ? How do you survive ?

                  1. “What the Fuck do you think it is about ?”

                    Haven’t really thought much about it until now. I suppose it’s more or less about the same things as No Logo, the only book of hers I’ve read. Have you read her latest?

                2. In other words, you have no idea what the march was about, but you’re confident that everyone else’s opinion is wrong. Yes, you should totally go with that thought process, it suits you.

                  1. “In other words, you have no idea what the march was about”

                    No. I read Ron’s reportage. I have some idea of what the march was about. It’s not Ron’s opinions I have a problem with. It’s his crummy propagandist reporting that irks me. You can read previous comments of mine here for details if you can be bothered.

          4. Here here! Before putting environmental issues on capitalism, perhaps they should look at China, Russia, N Korea to see how environment is treated under other systems they seem to prefer.

            1. The tragedy of the commons will inevitably occur without property rights. The relative health of the environment in Western countries only exists insofar as property rights remain respected. The more reliance that is placed on bureaucracy, the worse off the environment tends to be.

        4. Jackand Ace|9.23.14 @ 10:13AM|#M

          “I lie awake every night in fear that the weather will be different tomorrow“.

          Pathetic.

          Scared, dumb and ugly is no way to go through life, son.

          1. Two out of three…I’m good looking.

        5. I wouldn’t worry too much. When people really truly believe the world is about to end, they act like it. Once you see Al Gore sell his mansion to go on a crazed coke and crime spree, or see DiCaprio start living like a prepper, then you should be scared.

          1. I always love when the greenies retort to our complaints that Al and Leo should sell their big houses, planes, and yachts that Al and Leo should be entitled to those things “because they care so much and spread the message.”

            You know what as a Christian, the guy I follow and believe in gave up everything he had and still did fine spreading his message.

            So yes Al and Leo, either sell off all your shit and live a fully carbon neutral life or shut the hell up!

        6. Can you point out the hypocrisy for me?

          1. Why? Are you stupid?

          2. Sure. I am referring to hypocrisy at the website, not with Ronald. So here it is…when this website reported on the Bundy affair, it was all about the constitution, and how because that cause is always “righteous,” the civil disobedience the protesters engaged in there was then righteous.

            But on the climate march, Ronald (rep of Reason) tells us about the diverse motives within the marchers (fair enough, but there were diverse motives with the Bundy crowd as well). In addition, you can tell that he is demeaning the beliefs of many of these people, therefore categorizing it as much less than righteous.

            And therein lies the hypocrisy at Reason.

        7. Ace, if you think climate change is our biggest problem, then you truly are one ignorant twit.

        8. Climate change is not a big problem. Rest ans sleep easy and smile.

      2. why the police stopped them before they get to the stock exchange

        The stock exchange is like the most protected shrine in the country. Nobody gets near it without express permission – certainly not a bunch of hippies.

        1. Calling these watermelons hippies is a huge insult to hippies.

      3. LP# &J&A: Do not mistake my reporting for approving of how the police handled the protest. I fully expected the cops to let the Flooders walk to the NYSE where they would undergo the ritual arrests that they sought.

        That being said, it’s fair game to point out what I think are the Flooder’s real motivations.

        1. Indeed it is…just wanted to point out that here at Reason, no one wanted to point out Bundy’s real motive, which was ONLY money.

          1. Thank goodness we have you to save us from ourselves. Go, kind stranger! I’m sure there are other parts of the internet crying out for your help.

            1. Thanks…its how I roll.

              1. So selfless, so brave.

          2. .just wanted to point out that here at Reason, no one wanted to point out Bundy’s real motive, which was ONLY money

            True, if his motivation was a selfless desire to save others from themselves,

            Then any level of violence would be justified.

          3. Bundy was pretty scummy by all accounts, but that doesn’t inhibit the message that came out of that standoff, at least for people who aren’t walking ad hominem machines. who isn’t nearly as important as what, how, or why

            1. And whatever the motivation of Chris Hedges, what comes out of the climate march doesn’t inhibit the message that climate change is a clear danger for us all…capitalists and socialists.

              1. …”what comes out of the climate march doesn’t inhibit the message that climate change is a clear danger for us all…capitalists and socialists.”

                Unproven assertion, but then I expect no other from Jack.

              2. Sorry but you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

                The only real danger from climate change is to our wallets as the corrupt governments of the world use it as an excuse to raise taxes.

                People like you enable these criminals.

          4. Indeed it is…just wanted to point out that here at Reason

            It’s an opinion magazine, it’s going to have an opinion. You pointed out nothing.

            no one wanted to point out Bundy’s real motive, which was ONLY money.

            Umm, ok. According to you.

          5. Actually it wasn’t ONLY money. It was about how the BLM managed land. They did it quite poorly (according to Bundy) and then wanted to charge everyone for it. Bundy wanted to feds out of the picture and for the state or private individuals to manage the land.

            1. You are only proving my point, juice, which is that the same complaint Ronald is making about the march (different groups had different agendas) can also be said about the Bundy event.

              For you, it may have been about BLM. For others, guns. Bundy? Puh-leeze. He cared only about his pocket book.

              1. The difference being that wanting money is not inherently a bad thing. Neither is waiting any form of profit. The line between desire & greed is hard to pin down. Everyone tends to draw it in a different place.

                Conversely, wanting an end to the one economic system that’s lifted more people out of poverty than any other system–& pushing for a system that’s been proven, time & again, to result in huge abuses of power & large-scale genocide–that’s ignorant at best & insane at worst.

                The two are not really comparable.

          6. You obviously didn’t spend much time reading the comments. Quite a few people discussed how he was nothing but a rent-seeker.

          7. If a taxed person whose money is being violently seized, in any way resists that aggression, then they are concerned ONLY about money? Greed sure is a great catch-all explanation for everything.

            Did it ever occur to you that the person who is being robbed might protest at the injustice of theft?

        2. I never took it that way Ron. You were kinder to them than I would be.

    5. But the climate march and aftermath? That CAN’T be righteous, can it?

      Maybe if they’d done it in Hong Kong.

    6. It could be righteous, but it isn’t. “Climate Change” is a catch all excuse for “give us more power”. Anti-capitalism is trendy nonsense. The protesters are deluded nitwits who, historically and globally speaking, have nothing to complain of.

      Now, if it was a march of low income workers mad at corporations for they way they get treated by their employers I would be more sympathetic. I don’t think the fast-food workers strikes are well thought out, but they strike me as sincere and based on real issues.

      Anyway; freedom of speech includes the freedom to get mocked for your speech. Particularly if you are an upper-middle class college educated dolt complaining about problems that may not even exist.

    7. Well, yeah, there are some thing libertarians agree with and some we disagree with. And we actually judge and report on them differently. Imagine that!

      You should see how cynical and vicious we can get if progressives start using civil disobedience in support of eugenics and segregation again, like they used to.

    8. But the climate march and aftermath? That CAN’T be righteous, can it?

      Judging by the intellectual foundation of these protester’s grievances, no it can’t be righteous. I mean they’re advocating enormous amounts of political coercion in Marxist terms. You’ll have to forgive those who regard the protest as a ‘movement of mass collective dumbfuckery’.

  6. The U.N. Climate Summit convenes 120 or so world leaders….

    Gosh, it’s like we haven’t already been down this road a few times before and the non-West didn’t clearly demonstrate its unwillingness to dramatically lower their standard of living in order to satisfy the whims of wealthy Western Gaia-hipsters.

    1. Like Jon Stewart said last night…its Sisyphus pushing a million pound of idiot up a hill.

      1. Jackand Ace|9.23.14 @ 9:50AM|#
        “Like Jon Stewart said last night.”

        You can stop right there.

        1. But, but, but smart people watch John Stewart! So if you watch John Stewart then you’re smart, like the smart people who watch him!

          1. Yeah! Watch him DESTROY & ANNIHILATE WHILE FUCKING THEM IN THE ASS an old guy who thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman.

        2. Well, the representatives Stewart is talking about really are scientifically and economically illiterate. The right is as incompetent and corrupt as the left.

      2. Shorter Jackass: brown people are idiots because they refuse to dispense their material progress at the behest of my doomsday cult.

      3. That shit was so painful I couldn’t watch it. It was a battle royal of idiocy. Scientific fraud John Holdren on one side and scientifically illiterate Repub congressmen on the other making him look good.

      4. Like Jon Stewart said last night…its Sisyphus pushing a million pound of idiot up a hill.

        I’d say Sisyphus has expended a lot more carbon than any given idiot and has a lot less to show for it.

        However, I freely admit that thinking about things rationally doesn’t always engender the deliberate hyperbole, shallow-mindedness, and one-liner sound-bytes that are required to pull off political-comedy.

      5. With all due respect but…fuck Jon Stewart.

        Seriously.

        And if you have to refer to him by intellectual proxy then you’re a bigger fool than first thought.

        1. Come on RJ, you and I both love comedy. Starting with the Marx Bros.

          1. Yes I do. But this shit of Stewart heralded as a modern Juvenal is grating. He’s funny to a point but liberals using him as some sort of intellectual barometer is lame.

    2. You just keep pushing.

      1. Gaia doomsdayers seem to keep squeezing out the same shit, so pushing is rather appropriate.

    3. Maybe when “convene” means “get together on a conference call”, and not “create the carbon footprint of a small developing nation flying thousands of Party members to meet and greet and have fancy parties”.

      1. Point!

      2. So, you have a bone against NetJets then?

  7. …this was my first time enjoying the human “microphone” in which participants nearer the speakers repeat by shouting what they are saying so that others further back can benefit from their insights.

    A literal echo chamber of ideas!

    1. A literal echo chamber of ideas!

      *turns back to face stage again*

      1. A liberal echo chamber of ideals!

        *faces stage*

        1. A liberal echoes changing ideas!

        2. A liturgical echo chamber of ID’s!

          *checks iPhone*

          1. A capella ecochamber of bees!

          2. PURPLE MONKEY DISHWASHER!

            1. WHAT????!!!

              1. And when do we want it?

  8. Estronioli is an organizer against the giant Belo Monte dam largely being built and paid for by the Brazilian government in the Amazon region. “We are the victims of the same global model in which energy plays a central role,” concluded Estronioli. “There is no clean energy in the capitalist system.” Say what?

    Nothing says “capitalist system” like such massive government intrusion. The rule of political and economic terms is at work: Every political and economic term has one of only two meanings, namely, “whatever I like” and “whatever I don’t like.”

    1. That was my biggest laugh. It seems to be the biggest misunderstanding of libertarians: that there’s an alternative to choosing a style of government, and that’s taking care of yourself, with no (or little) government oversight.

      It’s frustrating talking to idiots who can’t see that distinction. They take government as a requirement of life, like air or gravity. Heck, they can probably imagine life in zero gee mroe than life without government regulating their life.

      1. Those who do not choose how they will be governed will have a choice imposed on them by the first strongman who comes along. Government is inevitable, rather like decay, which doesn’t mean it should be allowed to grow past a certain point.

        1. Those who do not choose how they will be governed will have a choice imposed on them by the first strongman who comes along.

          I choose to be governed by voluntary market institutions.

          Government is inevitable, rather like decay, which doesn’t mean it should be allowed to grow past a certain point.

          Lots of places existed and functioned without government for extended periods time. And certainly the Westphalian nation-state system is not inevitable since it only came into being after the Peace of Westphalia.

          Society is a natural facet of human codependency. Government funded by institutional theft is not a natural occurrence of human interaction.

      2. You don’t support the incarceration of children in overfunded public brain-washing facilities? Why do you hate education?

        My favorite is when people tell me that libertarians “oppose healthcare” as if we are some religious sect opposed to medical care.

      3. You don’t support the incarceration of children in overfunded public brain-washing facilities? Why do you hate education?

        My favorite is when people tell me that libertarians “oppose healthcare” as if we are some religious sect opposed to medical care.

        1. That comment was so good, Reason posted it twice.

  9. Why is corporate pollution worse than government pollution?

    1. Corporations are them, the evil rich, and government is us, the people.

    2. That was my thought too. Does the glorious power plant of the people not emit pollution or something? Do dams not block rivers when they’re not capitalist dams? Or does this maroon think that capitalists just build unnecessary power plants and factories that pollute just for the hell of it (that’s my guess) or that in the glorious non-capitalist future of mankind, people will happily sit around singing songs by candlelight instead of using electricity?

      1. When government does bad things like pollute, it is because it has been hijacked by capitalism. When government does good things like…uh…something something, then it is victory for socialism.

      2. people will happily sit around singing songs by candlelight instead of using electricity

        Hey they’re not wrong on that one.

        Q: What did the socialists use before candles?

        A: Electricity.

        1. Well except for the “happily”, “singing songs”, and implicit “not starving”.

      3. No, but he believes with all his heart that wind turbines, solar collectors, and probably one or to other systems that nobody has adopted, generate energy without having any negative effects. That this is impossible is something that one couldn’t drive through his bonehead with a 10 lb. maul.

        Which brings up something I’d like to know; Say we do start collecting a significant amount of power through solar collectors. What effect will that have? Leave out the energy cost and pollution associated with the solar cells; let’s assume for this discussion that Santa Clause leaves all the solar cells we need in our stockings. Those cells are taking energy out of a dynamic system. What does that DO?

        1. Ultimately all the energy they collect turns to heat, but that would be the same regardless of what the energy source was. In the process of absorbing radiation, they turn some more of it into heat, but I don’t know whether that’d be more or less than whatever would be there in the path of the radiation otherwise.

          Of course to the extent they intercept radiation, they deprive whatever is under the collectors of it. That would be most apparent in the case of elevated collectors on supports or balloons or in orbit, but it would also be true of whatever ground or bldg. it was laid on.

          1. In desert areas it’s less detrimental, setting aside all the pollutant costs of it’s manufacture. But then again, the only time solar cells really make sense is when you want power in a location far removed from the power grid and then solar technology only has a practical advantage over conventional sources, but still not a superior economic incentive.

          2. “Ultimately all the energy they collect turns to heat,”

            Yes, but does it turn into heat in the same place it would have, and if not, what effect does that have? Are we risking disruption of the planetary weather systems? Will solar farms generate concentrated updrafts that in turn generate cyclones? Is anybody actually looking at this?

            We are not going to slash the energy budget without harming millions of people. And if we try to tell the billions of brown folks they can’t have our comfortable lifestyle because we tried it and it wasn’t right, they are going to trample our collective white ass, and so they should.

            We need to generate huge amounts of electricity, we need to do it on an ongoing basis, and fairy tales about energy sources that don’t carry an ecological cost serve us poorly.

      4. does this maroon think that capitalists just build unnecessary power plants and factories that pollute just for the hell of it (that’s my guess)

        That’s my guess too, approximately. They seem to think that someone making money off someone else’s work thereby gains the magic power to convince customers to buy goods & services they don’t really want, while somehow people who are working for themselves, gov’t, or an unowned collective don’t gain that power and can get people to buy from them only what they really want. And what they really want doesn’t require those various Earth-changing things to be used.

        Or, if it’s not the magic ability to convince people to buy, it’s the motiv’n to do that that exists when you’re paying people to work for you, but doesn’t exist among workers who are making the money themselves or via the gov’t or an unowned collective. Because nobody wants (badly enough to fool consumers) to make money when nobody’s making a profit from their work.

      5. Does the glorious power plant of the people not emit pollution or something?

        It does, but you will learn to like it! Or, rather, you will be so busy trying to find something to eat that you won’t notice.

  10. Well, if they manage to end Capitalism, the climate crisis will be over. We’ll be far to concerned with the starvation crisis, the violent collapse of society crisis, and ironically the destruction of the environment crisis to care anymore about the climate crisis.

    1. if they managed to end capitalism, they’d all be dead in about 15 minutes, probably curled up outside an abandoned Chipotle.

      1. So fucking true.

      2. And in their last thoughts they’ll be blaming the rich for it.

        1. And capitalism.

          Capitalism took down the great USSR, after all.

    2. Well, if they manage to end Capitalism, the climate crisis will be over.

      Funny part is, no it won’t. The climate will continue to be the climate and, as you point out, we’ll be even less well-equipped to deal with it.

    3. Well, if they manage to end Capitalism, the climate crisis will be over.

      Not at all. Socialist and communist nations manged to pump huge amounts of carbon in the air too, they just didn’t produce much with it.

      And much (most?) of the carbon in the atmosphere today was put there under European monarchies and dictatorships.

      1. Don’t forget governments? 50% of modern US emissions originate with the government.

  11. . Listening to Klein it was pretty hard not to conclude that the real goal is imposing equality, and climate change is the excuse.

    In the end that is what the CAGW cult is all about. If they truly cared about the climate, the observations of the past five years, with the absence of rising methane and water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere, relatively stable temperatures which thoroughly falsified the catastrophic hypotheses would have been greeted with hosanas and changing their focus to regional issues and how to mitigate the impacts of changes in climate.

    Instead they are insistently proclaiming that humanity should make a great leap forward to energy poverty and a return to a neo-feudalist economic system. Because that’s what they want; the climate is a convenient hobgoblin to scare people with so that people will join their pitiful movement.

    1. Don’t forget that genetic engineering of crops to make them drought/flood/disease/pest -resistant is evil.

      1. And the idea of fighting the computer model-proven global warming by geo-engineering – like dumping a few million tons of iron pellets in the ocean to stimulate carbon-sequestering algae growth – is a dangerous idea because nobody can possibly build a computer model sophisticated enough to predict what the consequences of this would be.

        I keep hearing about the “tipping point” – supposedly 400 ppm – where atmospheric CO2 becomes such a big problem that merely slowing the amount we’re injecting is not enough to solve the crisis, suggesting that we must actually start extracting CO2 from the atmosphere.

        This naturally raises in my mind the question of “if we can figure out how to fairly easily and cheaply extract CO2 from the atmosphere, why bother with the more difficult and expensive methods of reducing emissions?” If the prevention costs more than the cure, why bother with the prevention? Would you buy theft insurance for your car if the theft insurance cost more than your car?

        Ask that question of some of these environmentalists and they are aghast at the very idea, the goal is clearly to reduce emissions by reducing production (and reducing human progress in the way that human beings seem determined to measure progress – i.e., material wealth) rather than by figuring out how to get greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere as efficiently as possible.

        1. Most of them only want to reduce human progress by certain people, not themselves obviously.

        2. “Would you buy theft insurance for your car if the theft insurance cost more than your car?”

          I’m pretty sure that a utilitarian approach won’t be accepted since the issue here is religious.
          The watermelons bleeve in the concept of a pristine ‘mother earth’, so anything that doesn’t further that end is unacceptable.
          In the case of this and the other Sunday hoo-haa, we’ve also got the infantile desire for free shit, and a means of taking it from those who have earned it (the gov’t.)

          1. I don’t know. Is a car private property or personal property?

          2. The watermelons bleeve in the concept of a pristine ‘mother earth’, so anything that doesn’t further that end is unacceptable.

            I would even go full-on Garden of Eden. Small, unreal, metaphoric, unattainable…

            At least, I find plenty of people willing to blight large swathes of ‘mother earth’ with windmills and solar panels so that small chunks can *seem* (to them) like what God intended.

        3. I don’t think it’s exactly (or only)that so much as, “Human beings’ doing of stuff on the basis of reflection must come out bad, so the best thing is for people to do nothing, even if you think of something. The closer you come to nothing that involves thinking, the better. Other animals don’t think (or don’t think much), so everything they do comes out OK.”

        4. Would you buy theft insurance for your car if the theft insurance cost more than your car?

          It already does, and unless you are dirt poor, you are better off not paying it.

          1. Cars whose value that have not diminished beyond the aggregate cost of insurance premiums makes economic sense. Risk pooling and mitigation is wise whether you’re relatively rich or poor.

  12. Funny, those in charge now were anti gov’t hippies and activists of the 60s and they sold out. I wonder how many of these modern activists will sell out in 30-40 years.

    1. They didn’t sell out. They were never anti-state, they just wanted their version of statism to be implemented. The hippies were often socialist, Marxist and/or communal-anarchists. It’s of no surprise with this generation in power that they govern the way they do and spread their insidious ideology the way they do.

      1. Most of them that I remember personally were just stoners that that enjoyed the concept of free love.

  13. Gov’t support of corporations create monopolies, stifles small business, gov’t intervention in the lives of people destroys creativity, but they want more gov’t intervention?

    1. Well, yeah! I mean, those corporations like control the government and stuff! We need to stop the corporations from running the government and bring power back to the people! Since the people are government and government is the people, we can do this by giving more power to the government! Then we the people through the government will control the corporations that control the government! Fuck yeah! Power to the people!

    2. Well you see, if you want to prevent the formation of monopolies you need to form a monopoly of monopolies to fight the monopolies. Makes perfect sense.

    3. Obligatory post

      Too bad we can’t inline images here. 🙁

      1. 404 Errors are not obligatory.

        1. They are on the healthcare exchanges.

          1. Walter Peck everybody! *tremendous applause*

  14. Stop Capitalism. End the Climate Crisis.

    Stop Computers. End the Koala Crisis.

    Stop Ham Sandwiches. End the Magazine Crisis.

    Stop Guitars. End the Bowling Trophy Crisis.

    Stop Sparrows. End the Chair Crisis.

    1. Yeah, man. FUCK those sparrows…

      1. Met someone names sparrow at burning man. I knew what to do.

        1. *sees waffles…crosses to other side of street*

        2. Ask where his brother Jack was?

      2. African or European?

        Oh, wait, you said SPARROWS…never mind.

    2. It could be cause for concern how everything on your list could easily be accepted as sound science by more than a few.

  15. “We demand to Change Everything.”

    Oh. Well, that sounds completely reasonable and realistic, and you know, not completely Maoist and impossible at all.

    1. You know who else wanted to change everything?

      1. An excellent response to those who say that the National Socialists weren’t really socialists. Land confiscation for the common purpose, communal shop space, etc, this is just rife with socialism.

  16. Flood Wall Street Climate Change Protest Is a Washout

    I blame melting polar ice and rising sea levels.

  17. “The planet is fine. People are fucked.” -George Carlin

  18. These anti-capitalists make so many bad arguments it’s difficult to pick one to confront…

    She cogently asked at the Flood Wall Street rally how can electricity from such projects “be clean energy when it is produced inside a model that violates human rights?”

    And interesting moral argument to raise from someone who proposes that people’s property be expropriated at gunpoint. Can redistributing wealth from state coercion be righteous and just if it quite clearly violates natural rights? The logical consistency of these people is non-existent.

    1. “Can redistributing wealth from state coercion be righteous and just if it quite clearly violates natural rights?”

      Ah, but you have to remember that wealth was stolen by corporations and the rich whose only motive is to rob the masses. It is all illegally-gained booty!!!

      1. Althought I detect sarcasm, Ill engage that argument. If stolen wealth can be considered illegally-gained booty then you must an opponent of taxation, right?

        1. While it is sarcasm, I actually hear people say bullshit like that and mean it. Very scary.

          As for taxation, the “illegally-gained booty” crowd would say it is the only way to get back those stolen funds.

          1. The corporations are them and the government is us.

            So when corporations make profits from selling goods and services to voluntary customers, or by paying wages to voluntary employees, that is theft.

            Government is us. So when government coerces corporations into paying their fair share, it’s not theft.

            You see, the action is not what matters. It’s who does it that matters.

            Principals trump principles.

            Leftist Lady Justice wears no blindfold.

  19. So, like, these people believe that whatever it is people want to do that’s contributing to climate change wouldn’t take place (at all or to the same degree) if people weren’t hiring other people to make money? Like somehow these physical processes would come out differently if the capital being used in them weren’t owned by anybody, or were owned by everybody, or something like that?

    1. If you look around the world you’ll find a positive correlation between disrespect for property rights and high levels of pollution. In industrial countries like China it’s manifested in industrial pollution being permitted to violate the property of others, in more undeveloped countries like in sub-Saharan Africa it’s manifested in soil erosion and poor stewardship of the vast public lands.

      Insofar as the environment in the US is ‘clean’ is due to what remains of respect for property rights, not federal institutions which just so happen to be the biggest polluters of all.

      1. Exactly. If I’m able to take you to court for dumping hazardous waste on my land or getting me sick and win, you’re going to have a lot cleaner environment.

        If you become an enemy of the state or disappeared for complaining about pollution, you’re going to have a lot more pollution.

        1. Not to mention that with enforceable property rights, there is no way to circumvent cost restrictions placed activities that harm others. But with a statutory or bureaucratic enforcement mechanism, you can acquire permits from the government that allow you to harm others within some arbitrary bounds. It’s pretty simple to see why one system is better than the other at protecting environments.

  20. Missed the “Stop Climate Chaos” sign on the first go ’round. I’m afraid to ask what the alternative might be.

  21. Why are these marches not held during the winter?

  22. Because socialism has such a good environmental record.

    1. Yeah? Well their good intentions trump your results!

  23. How odd a sensation it must be to claim a moral high ground for advocating for maximum wealth inequality and unchecked pollution of the planet.

    1. Sorry, all I heard was diarrhea hitting water.

    2. What’s wrong with inequality? That it’s unequal?

      1. I said maximum. Is there any economic plan out there that results in more inequality? I can’t think of one, except perhaps “give everything to the dictator.”

        1. Again what’s the problem with inequality?

    3. Tony|9.23.14 @ 12:12PM|#
      “How odd a sensation it must be to claim a moral high ground for advocating for maximum wealth inequality and unchecked pollution of the planet.”

      How odd a sensation it must be to have a POV that requires constant lies.

    4. What an odd sensation it must be to claim a moral high ground for advocating poverty and unchecked pollution, in particular if you’re a wealthy and privileged American left-winger. Of course, you are too ignorant to figure that out, which is why you never experience that sensation.

    5. Nobody’s advocating maximum wealth inequality or unchecked pollution.

      Inequality should be at whatever level naturally results from a free market. Contrary to Marxist doctrine we are not convinced it ends in a giant monopoly owning everything.

      Pollution should be checked by liability and property rights.

      You know all this already.

      1. Contrary to Marxist doctrine we are not convinced it ends in a giant monopoly owning everything.

        I would remind them that a giant monopoly owning everything is what they support by advocating hyper regulation and taxation.

      2. Of course I do. You believe in magic and not reality. Thanks for saying so.

        1. Tony|9.23.14 @ 4:43PM|#
          …”You believe in magic and not reality”…

          One more lie, lying POS.

    6. “Tony|9.23.14 @ 12:12PM|#

      How odd a sensation it must be to claim a moral high ground for advocating for maximum wealth inequality and unchecked pollution of the planet.”

      Tony the Soviet Union is long disbanded and China ordered all cars off the streets just before the Olympics . So what’s your problem ?

      How old were you when your father abandoned you/your family ?

  24. Listening to Klein it was pretty hard not to conclude that the real goal is imposing equality, and climate change is the excuse.

    It always has been. (since I have been alive, anyway.)

  25. I remember someone saying, “Climate change is the issue that binds all other liberal ideas and issues together.”

    1. And here I thought widespread ignorance was their uniting ideal.

  26. ronald, do they actually pay you to write this bullshit?

    1. Hey! Josh is back!
      Just what we need; a steaming pile of ignorant bullshit!

  27. my co-worker’s mom makes $78 hourly on the computer . She has been fired for 6 months but last month her payment was $21331 just working on the computer for a few hours. visit this website ….

    ???????? http://www.netjob70.com

  28. These activists are champions in the category “Do as I do, not as I said” from these photos we saw at http://www.thegatewaypundit.co…..deal-with/

  29. Well that settles it.

    The news is dire.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.